Draft for a Speech on the Agrarian Question in the Second State Duma

Ihope, gentlemen, that I have succeeded in making clear our Social-Democratic
attitude to the “Right” parties and to the liberal Centre (the
Cadets) in respect of the agrarian question. I must now deal with one important
difference between, the views of the Social-Democrats and those of the Trudoviks
in the broad sense of that word, i.e., all the parties that base themselves on
the “labour principle”, which includes the Popular Socialists, the
Trudoviks in the narrow sense of the word, and the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Fromwhat I have already said, it can be seen that the Social-Democratic Labour
Party gives its full support to the peasant masses in their struggle against the
landlords for land, and for emancipation from feudal exploitation. There are
not, there cannot be, more reliable allies for the peasantry in this struggle,
than the proletariat, which hasmade the greatest number of sacrifices to the cause of winning light and
      liberty for Russia. The peasantry have not, and cannot have, any other
      means of ensuring the satisfaction of their just demands than that of
      joining the class-conscious proletariat, which is struggling under the red
      banner of inter national Social-Democracy. Everywhere in Europe liberal
      parties have betrayed the peasantry and have sacrificed their interests to
      those of the landlords; and as I showed by my analysis of the liberal,
      Cadet programme, the same thing is happening here in Russia.

Inprevious parts of my speech, I have frequently touched on the differences in
the views of the Trudovik Group and those of the Social-Democrats on the
agrarian question. Now I must examine one of the principal views of the
Trudovik Group.

Forthis purpose, I shall permit myself to take the speech made by the Reverend
Tikhvinsky. Gentlemen! The Social-Democrats do not share the views of the
Christian religion. We believe that therealsocial, cultural and
political significance and content of Christianity ismore trulyex
pressed by views and aspirations of such members of the clergy as Bishop
Eulogius, than by those of such as the Reverend Tikhvinsky. That is why, on the
basis of our scientific, materialist philosophy to which all prejudice is alien,
on the basis of the general aims of our struggle for the freedom and happiness
of all working people, we Social-Democrats have a negative attitude towards the
doctrines of Christianity. But, having said that, I consider it my duty to add,
frankly and openly, that the Social-Democrats are fighting for complete freedom
of conscience, and have every respect for any sincere conviction in matters of
faith, provided that conviction is not implemented by force or deception. I
consider it all the more my duty to stress this point since I am going to speak
of my differences with theReverendTikhvinsky—a peasant deputy
who deserves all respect for his sincere loyalty to the interests of the
peasants, the interests of the people, which he defends fearlessly and with
determination.

DeputyTikhvinsky supports the land bill of the Trudovik Group; it is based onequalitarian principlesof land tenure. In support of this bill, Deputy
Tikhvinsky said:

“Thisis the way the peasants, the way the working people look at the land: the
land is God’s, and the labouring peasant has as much right to it as each
one of us has the right to water and-air. it would be strange if anyone were to
start selling, buying or trading in water and air—and it seems just as
strange to us that anyone should trade in, sell or buy land. The Peasant Union
and the Trudovik Group wish to apply the principle—all the land to the
working people. With regard to compensation for the land—how the above is
to be effected, by means of compensation or by simple alienation without
compensation, is a question that does not interest the labouring peasantry....”

“Thisis the way the peasants, the way the working people look at the land: the
land is God’s, and the labouring peasant has as much right to it as each
one of us has the right to water and-air. it would be strange if anyone were to
start selling, buying or trading in water and air—and it seems just as
strange to us that anyone should trade in, sell or buy land. The Peasant Union
and the Trudovik Group wish to apply the principle—all the land to the
working people. With regard to compensation for the land—how the above is
to be effected, by means of compensation or by simple alienation without
compensation, is a question that does not interest the labouring peasantry....”

Thatis what Deputy Tikhvinsky said in the name of the Peasant Union and the
Trudovik Group.

Theerror, the profound error, of the Trudoviks is theirnotbeing
interested in the question of compensation and that ofways of
implementingthe land reform, although whether or not the peasantry will
achieve liberation from landlord oppressionactuallydepends on this
question. They are interested in the question of the sale and purchase of land
and in that of the equal rights of all to land, although that questionhas
no serious significancein the struggle for the real emancipation of the
peasantry from the oppression of the landlords.

DeputyTikhvinsky defends the point of view that land must not be bought or
sold, and that all working people have an equal right to the land.

Iam well aware that this viewpoint springs from the most noble motives, from an
ardent protest against monopoly, against the privileges of rich idlers, against
the exploitation of man by man, that it arises out of the aspiration to achieve
the liberation of all working people from every kind of oppression and
exploitation.

Itis for this ideal, the ideal of socialism, that .the Social-Democratic
Labour Party is struggling. It is, however, an ideal that cannot be achieved by
the equalitarian use of land by small proprietors, in the way Deputy Tikhvinsky
and his fellow-thinkers dream of.

DeputyTikhvinsky is prepared to fight honestly, sincerely and with
determination—and, I hope, to fight to the end—against the power of
the landlords. But he has f or gotten another, still more burdensome, still more
oppressivepower over the working people of today,the power of capital, the power of
      money.

DeputyTikhvinsky has said that the sale of land, water and air seems strange to
the peasant. I realise that people who have lived all their lives, or almost all
their lives in the countryside, should acquire such views. But just take a look
at modern capitalist society, at the big cities, at the rail ways, coal and iron
mines and factories. You will see how the wealthy have seized the air and the
water and the land. You will see how tens and hundreds of thousands of workers
are condemned to deprivation of fresh air, to work under ground, to life in
cellars and to the use of water polluted by the neighbouring factory. You will
see how fantastically the price of land goes up in the cities, and how the
worker is exploited, not only by the factory owners, but also by house owners
who, as everybody knows, get much more out of apartments, rooms, corners of
rooms and slums inhabited by workers than out of apartments for the
wealthy. And, indeed, what is the sale and purchase of water, air and land when
the whole of present-day society is based on the purchase and sale oflabour-power., i.e.,on the wage slaveryof millions of
people!

Justconsider it: can you imagine equalitarian land tenure or prohibiting the
sale and purchase of land as long as the power of money, the power of capital,
continues to exist? Can the Russian people be delivered from oppression and
exploitation if the right of every citizen to an equal-sized piece of land is
recognised, when, at the same time, a handful of people own tens of thousands
and millions of rubles each, and the mass of the people remain poor? No,
gentlemen. As long as the power of capital lasts, noequalitybetween
land owners will be possible, and any sort of ban on the purchase and sale of
land will be impossible, ridiculous and absurd. Everything, not merely the
land, but human labour, the human being himself, conscience, love,
science—everything mustinevitably be for saleas long asthe
power of capitallasts.

Insaying this, I have absolutely no desire to weaken the peasants’ struggle for
land, or belittle its significance, its importance or its urgency. I do not
intend anything of the sort. I have said, and I repeat, that this struggle is a
just and necessary one, that the peasant, in his own interests, and inthe interests of the proletariat, and in the interests of social development as
a whole,mustthrow off the feudal oppression of the landlords.

Class-consciousworkers wish to strengthen the peasants’ struggle for land, not
weaken it. Socialists do not strive to check this struggle, butto carry it
further, and for this purpose shake off all naïve faith in the possibility
of putting petty proprietors on an equal footing, or of banning the sale and
purchase of land, as long as exchange, money and the power of capital exist.

WorkerSocial-Democrats give their full support to the peasants against the
landlords. But it is not petty owner ship, even if it is equalitarian, that can
save mankind from the poverty of the masses, from exploitation and from the
oppression of man by man. What is needed for that is a struggle for the
destruction of capitalist society, and its replacement by large-scale socialist
production. This struggle is now being conducted by millions of class-conscious
Social-Democrat workers in all countries of the world. It is only by joining in
this struggle that the peasantry can, having got rid of their first enemy, the
feudal landlord, conduct a successful struggle against the second and more
terrible enemy, the power of capital!